Comments on: Column: Ann Arbor’s Dumb Old Charter

By: Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:42:06 +0000

As I read through the City Charter, I too find much that could be cleaned up. I think it’s good when governing documents match governing reality.

I don’t share the fear that a charter commission would recommend and voters would approve elimination of the public document requirement, zone of reproductive freedom, or marijuana regulations. What does concern me is that since any proposed new charter needs to go through the governor’s office the reproductive freedom, marijuana, and other provisions could get impeded there.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:43:27 +0000

Bring back the Drain Commissioner! Water Resources Commissioner just doesn’t have the same “ring” to it. (yes, I know that’s a county office, but still…)

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:02:20 +0000

And what about our Zone of Reproductive Freedom?

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:44:25 +0000

Re: [12] City charter Section 18.2 reads as follows:

SECTION 18.2. All records of the City shall be public, shall be kept in City offices except when required for official reasons or for purposes of safekeeping to be elsewhere, and shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times. No person shall dispose of, mutilate, or destroy any record of the City, except as provided by law, and any person who shall do so contrary to law shall be guilty of a violation of this charter.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:59:53 +0000

Contemplate, if you dare, the real possibility that malign forces within City Hall will sneak in a repealer of section 18.2 of the Charter into a proposed redraft.

By: Greg Pratt

Greg Pratt — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:05:35 +0000

It may be time for persons with different “political stripes” to have opportunities to lead.

During this process, some individuals currently in power will need to let go of their aversions for civil confrontations.

Thanks to Mary and Dave for the incredible work they do in creating accessible, local civic information. I like facts.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 04:03:59 +0000

John–no, that’s not what I mean. I mean, even though it seems risky (see Dave Cahill’s comment in #6), eventually the democratic process has to be allowed to work (“At some point the worms have to be let out of the can.”) Although I will admit, at the state level, that process terrifies me; at the city level, not so much.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 04:21:57 +0000

@3 Dave is always right – unlike some in our community.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 04:20:54 +0000

@6 Dave,

What sort of horrors do you envision might happen in a city charter revision? 1% for art? 2% for BAD art? 3% for train stations?

BTW, how do we tell if we are crazies, or normals?

@7 Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like your implicit premise is that self-government – democracy – really is not viable. Do I read you correctly?

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:04:52 +0000

I’ve often had the same thought as David about the state constitution, which is supposed to be considered for revision by the voters every 16 years. In our toxic political climate it’s hard to imagine that process not going completely off the tracks. But aren’t we always in the middle of a political crisis of some sort? When will it be possible to conduct politics “normally” again? At some point the worms have to be let out of the can.